- Email: [email protected]
Knowledge and the academic accountant: An empirical study
Journal ojAccounting Education. Vol. 11, pp. l-13, Printed in the USA. All rights reserved.
KNOWLEDGE
1993 Copyright
0
0748-5751/93 $6.00 + .oO 1993 Pergamon Press Ltd.
AND THE ACADEMIC ACCOUNTANT: AN EMPIRICAL STUDY Reva Berman Brown UNIVERSITY OF ESSEX Chris Guild@ UNIVERSITY OF AUCKLAND
Abstract: This article concerns the way that academic accountants approach and perceive knowledge. Knowledge within disciplines is based upon knowledge strategies, which are the sets of beliefs and “rules” by means of which academics deal with knowledge. Knowledge strategies underlie the basic philosophy of the various departments which make up the university business school, and affect the way in which academics research and teach their disciplines. The origin of this article lies in our speculation about what it is that academic accountants consider worth knowing about accountancy issues, and further, what rules and strategies impact on their perception of what is valid or appropriate knowledge. In order to ascertain whether or not the concept of knowledge strategies has any validity and whether accounting faculty hold different knowledge strategies compared to nonaccounting business faculty, a study was undertaken involving the seven English university business schools which cover the full range of undergraduate, MBA, doctoral, and executive programmes. A questionnaire was sent to 407 academics at these schools. Following a factor analysis of the data collected, three strategies were identified as the Personal Knowledge Strategy (characterised by reliance on individual creativity, personal experience and judgement), the External Strategy (characterised by the view that knowledge can be found by means of objective criteria), and the Collegial Knowledge Strategy (characterised by debate and consultation with colleagues in order to compare, contrast, discuss and evaluate knowledge). A comparative analysis of the 68 accounting faculty who responded to the questionnaire and the 165 responding nonaccountant faculty revealed that academic accountants hold a significantly lower personal knowledge strategy and also a significantly higher external strategy, when compared with nonaccountant faculty. These empirical findings lend support to Zeff’s concern that academic accountants’ approach to education does not result in students being acquainted “with a field of professional endeavor consistent with the liberal tradition of universities” (Zeff, 1989b, p. 204).
INTRODUCTION
Universities are primarily concerned with the development and diffusion of knowledge through the activities of scholarship, research, and teaching across a wide range of disciplines. A key concept in understanding the nature of universities is that of knowledge strategy, which is the set of beliefs concerning how the search for knowledge is pursued. Knowledge strategies underlie the basic philosophy of academic disciplines and departments, and each department has to take account not only of the paradigm of its discipline, but also of its knowledge strategy. It is because of the diversity of beliefs about knowledge found within them that universities can have difficulty in applying princi-
2
R. B. Brown and C. Guilding
ples of management which have been developed in more cohesive business organizations. The same list of complaints is voiced by successive generations of accounting and business students year after year: The education given is too remote from real business concerns, is too “academic,” pays insufficient attention to the external legal, social and political environment within which the students will conduct their working lives, lacks coherence, is preoccupied with technical exactitude and expertise, and is inadequate in responding to the needs of contemporary society. While the academic staff of business schools might concede that there could be some validity in these criticisms, they are likely to add that there are two main things which the students are ignoring. First, that a specialized curriculum develops in students the habits of mind and the skills that will enable them to solve problems when they face them, and second, that students should accept that academics know about knowledge, and about what knowledge their students need to know. From the perspective of faculty, this second point seems to be frequently regarded as an innate truth. It would seem that accounting and business school academics consider themselves to be pursuing a particular aspect of knowledge through their research, scholarship, and teaching. This notion was the starting point of research into two questions: what are the knowledge strategies with which business school academics are concerned, and how do these strategies affect the accounting faculty of business schools? The questions were investigated sequentially. Initially, research was undertaken into the uncovering of the knowledge strategies of business school academics in general, and then the puzzle concerning academic accountants was addressed. The question of concern was: Is the manner in which knowledge is perceived by accounting academics significantly different from the manner in which it is perceived by nonaccounting business academics? The research method involved a survey by means of a mailed questionnaire. The population surveyed involved those seven English university business schools that cover the full range of educational courses: undergraduate, MBA, doctoral, and executive development programmes. The questionnaire was mailed to the 407 full-time business faculty at the seven university business schools which run such “whole-range” programmes. The objective of the survey was to elicit the perceptions of academics as to the elements which constitute appropriate knowledge in their business school in general, and their own discipline in particular. Four-hundred seven questionnaires were distributed, and 233 usable responses were obtained. These were divided into 68 accounting and 165 nonaccounting faculty. Following a literature review, preliminary interviews, and questionnaire piloting, eight questions (see Appendix) were designed to elicit the knowledge strategies of respondents (Brown, 1991).
Knowledge and the Academic Accountant
3
Factor analysis yielded the three factors described in the article. A respondent’s factor score provided the basis for the t-test and Kruskal-Wallis analysis (Frude, 1987). The data analysis was designed to investigate whether support can be provided for views and concerns expressed by a number of accounting researchers (e.g., Dent, 1986; Lander & Reinstein, 1987; Richardson, 1988; Subotnik, 1991; Zeff, 1989a, 1989b). We believe that knowledge strategies employed by accounting academics are fundamental to the subject of these commentaries. The remainder of the article first discusses the nature of knowledge strategies, and then focuses on a comparison of the knowledge strategies of accounting and nonaccounting academics. KNOWLEDGE
STRATEGIES
The undertaking of the empirical research was triggered by speculations put forward by Thompson, Hawkes, and Avery (1969/1976) in a discursive essay in which they posit the existence of knowledge strategies (they call them “truth strategies”) which are the sets of rules which guide human beings in their search for knowledge. Thompson et al. suggest that the knowledge contained within an academic discipline is elicited by means of implicit and/or explicit rules which make its definition possible, and which enable the recognition of such knowledge as relevant to the discipline. Thompson et al. are concerned not with ultimate truth, but with how people in universities behave with respect to knowledge and ignorance. This 25year-old essay had not been put to the test before Brown (1991) took up Thompson et al’s speculative model in order to test its relevance to the modern university. Where Thompson et al. posited that there might be four truth strategies, which they labelled the Scientific, Direct, Analytic, and Inspirational, Brown found that there are three factors which underlie the search for knowledge, which she called knowledge strategies, and labelled them Personal, External, and Collegial. Personal Knowledge
Strategy
Individual academics, disciplines, and academic institutions using the personal knowledge strategy are heavily weighted towards reliance on individual creativity, personal experience and judgements, valuing and relying on their own experience and judgement in their knowledge searches. External Knowledge
Strategy
Those who use the external knowledge strategy provide support for the proposition that academics in business schools tend to follow the “pattern of normal science” (Kuhn, 1962) in the social sciences by adapting the scientific method of the natural sciences to their knowledge requirements.
4
R. B. Brown and C. Guilding
Collegial Knowledge
Strategy
This strategy is the most co-operative of the knowledge strategies, involving debate and consultation with colleagues in order to compare, contrast, discuss, and evaluate knowledge. The collegial strategy contains a degree of personal judgement combined with openness to the judgement of others. Knowledge within a discipline is based upon its knowledge strategy, and it is this varied nature of knowledge that is particularly relevant to understanding the knowledge dynamics of universities. For instance, physicists hold certain beliefs about how the world works which are different from those held by historians or botanists. It was Thompson et al.‘s supposition (196911976) that it is because of this diversity of beliefs about knowledge that decision-making in universities is sometimes such a difficult process. It was suggested by Thompson et al. (1969/1976) and subsequently tested by Brown (1991) (and found to be likely) that knowledge strategies interact in a dynamic process with the academic disciplines of which they are a part, so that such disciplines both shape knowledge strategies and are shaped by them. This dynamic process is acted upon by the demands from within the university for certain types of standards of performance. Brown’s findings suggest that the knowledge strategies operating within an academic institution affect the institutional demands for performance norms and outcomes in three main areas: 1. Teaching (and its consequent examining standards, procedures, and pedagogical approach). For example, an academic who or a discipline which holds that knowledge is a product which can be accumulated, marketed, and sold, will teach external facts which can be examined by means of explicit procedures based on rigorously measured standards. 2. Research (and in particular, the chosen approach to data analysis and dissemination). For example, the academic whose knowledge strategy is that research should include a large element of continuing debate and discussion with colleagues will deal with data and the dissemination of the research in a different manner than a researcher whose knowledge strategy leads to a more private and individual approach (Machlup, 1982). 3. The institutional reward system (pay, promotion, and recognition of achievement). For example, if the predominant knowledge strategy of a university or department is that of reliance on the individual judgement and personal experience of faculty in their knowledge acquisition and dissemination, it is more likely to recognise the achievement of those faculty who happen to share this knowledge strategy, and will favor these for promotion over those faculty who approach knowledge with another strategy. Those faculty members who do not happen to share the pre-
Knowledge and the Academic Accountant
5
dominant strategy of their department or university feel that somehow they do not “fit in,” even though they cannot give a reason for this feeling (Becher, 1981, 1989; Brown, 1991). The process of knowledge acquisition is nowhere more deliberately instituted and self-consciously examined than in the modern university (Allen, 1988; Keeble, 1984; Weir, 1982). It is suggested, therefore, that the exploration of knowledge strategies employed by academic accountants will yield new understanding of the dynamics of accounting education.
THE ACCOUNTING CURRICULUM IN UNIVERSITY BUSINESS SCHOOLS The literature on accounting education, much of it critical of current trends in teaching (knowledge-dissemination), was the starting point of the second phase of the research. Once the likely existence of knowledge strategies in university business schools had been established, it was possible to pose the question: Is the manner in which knowledge is perceived by accounting academics significantly different from the manner in which it is perceived by nonaccounting business academics? Zeff (1989a) draws attention to recent tends in accounting education and research in the United States, and discusses some of their implications for academics in Britain. Zeff’s concern is that trends (in the USA) towards a strengthening of the standard-setting process and a more rigorous enforcement of accreditation standards is likely to produce undesirable effects on accounting education. Zeff states (1989a, p. 168) that textbooks and other teaching materials are likely to begin to resemble codifications of recommended practice because the trend is towards making accounting seem to be an objective, highly-structured corpus of settled knowledge. In the terms of this study, what Zeff is drawing attention to is the strength of the external knowledge strategy among accountants, whether academic or practitioners. In connection with this concern, Zeff (1989b) poses the threatening question: Does accounting belong in the university curriculum? His contention is that accounting is presented not as an interesting subject, but “as a collection of rules that are to be memorized in an uncritical, almost unthinking way” (Zeff, 1989b, p. 204). Zeff quotes Whitehead (1929, pp. 144-145) who suggested that “the proper function of the university is the imaginative acquisition of knowledge,” with the inference that this is not the way academic accountants see the purpose of their own academic discipline. It appears that Zeff would prescribe a change of attitude among academic accountants consistent with a shift towards a more personal knowledge strategy, and an easing of the extent to which they hold on to the
6
R. B. Brown and C. Guilding
external knowledge strategy. Because of the way in which the curriculum allows itself to be driven by the standard-setting bodies, academic accountants are not encouraged to widen their range of knowledge strategies for their discipline, for themselves, and for their students. Because “we have allowed the standard setters to determine our agenda” (Zeff, 1989b, p. 208), accountancy textbooks, accounting curricula, and the knowledge considered to be essential for the practice of accounting do not allow academic accountants to spend much time exploring and teaching those aspects of the discipline’s knowledge which derive from the personal, let alone the collegial, knowledge strategies. Richardson (1988) is concerned with the relationship between the structure of professional knowledge and accountants’ access to social rewards. Richardson’s results support Larson’s (1977) “cognitive exclusiveness” theory, which suggests that the professions gain rewards by standardising their knowledge and institutionalising the training of practitioners within universities. Here is another explanation of the reluctance of academic accountants to move from the external knowledge strategy. For Lander and Reinstein (1987), however, the hallmark of any profession is the presence of a common body of knowledge whose parts can be defined and defended. The common body of knowledge “determines the professional requirements of the beginning management accountant, the content of professional examinations, and the curricula that provide that knowledge” (Lander & Reinstein, 1987, p. 264). The existence and importance of that common body of knowledge is what preserves the relative narrowness of the curriculum delivered by academic accountants. This view echoes Zeff’s opinion (1989b) that a university education in accounting requires more than a dogmatic and doctrinaire curriculum. The knowledge provided by the academic accountant should include a historical perspective, the mention of the nonaccounting factors that have influenced the development of accounting practice, the recognition of the impact of accounting on the economy, the environment, and on society in general, and the inclusion of an international dimension in order to facilitate the students’ grasp of the many facets of economic, political, and social life in different countries and cultures. If such items were included in the accounting curriculum, it would imbue students with qualities which would prepare them “for an intellectual career in a profession of importance to society” (Zeff, 1989b, p. 207). Academic accountants’ knowledge strategies carry implications for accounting research as well as education. Dent (1986), reflecting on the state of management accounting research, concludes that the current preoccupation with the understanding of accounting as it is practiced demonstrates a growing interest in what he calls “accounting in action.” Research into “accounting in action” requires the use of the personal and the collegial knowledge strategies (there being no need to refer to external
Knowledge and the Academic Accountant
I
authority to research the way things are done), while it is the external knowledge strategy which comes into play when academics are disseminating knowledge about accounting rather than gathering knowledge by means of research. HYPOTHESIS
FORMULATION
Consideration of the literature of accounting knowledge in the light of the concept of knowledge strategies provided three hypotheses for investigation in the second phase of the research: 1. Accounting faculty hold a higher external knowledge strategy than nonaccounting faculty. 2. Accounting faculty hold a lower personal knowledge strategy than nonaccounting faculty. 3. Accounting faculty hold a lower collegial knowledge strategy than nonaccounting faculty. The first two hypotheses are discussed together below, followed by a discussion of the third hypothesis. Hypotheses
1 and 2
The rationale supporting these hypotheses is as follows: (a) Compared to the other disciplines that typify business schools (e.g., marketing, organizational behaviour), accounting faculty can be closely identified with a handful of large professional bodies. The creation and maintenance of a profession clarifies what subject matter and knowledge base is to be associated with the university discipline with which it is most closely allied. The question of what constitutes accounting’s knowledge base is manifestly addressed via the syllabi established for each of the professional institutes’ examinations. The existence of such a widely accepted knowledge base makes the task of defining an appropriate course content easier for the academic accountant. Alternatively, we could say that academic accountants are more constrained in their course design, experiencing less freedom, compared to nonaccounting colleagues. (b) In the Western world, accounting is generally associated with the well-defined double-entry methodology. The wide acceptance of this approach to record-keeping signifies the extent of standardisation achieved by accounting practitioners. Such standardisation is reinforced by accounting standards established by the regulatory and influential bodies which establish common codes of accounting practice. These standards are concerned with minimising problems of misinterpretation, inexactness and ambiguity, and creating financial
R. B. Brown and C. Guilding
8
statements that can be compared between enterprises and between accounting periods for the same enterprise. The degree of standardisation that has been inculcated into accounting practice reduces the accounting academic’s need to bring personal judgement to bear on the subject matter. The standard-setting process has also refined the areas and nature of debate associated with issues arising from accounting practice. (cl The strongly espoused principle of objectivity in accounting can also be expected to influence practitioners’ beliefs and approach to the subject matter of the discipline. Application of the objectivity principle can be seen as both an example, and a source, of standardisation. Adherence to this standard causes common approaches to be taken and minimises the need for judgement in financial reporting. The objectivity principle can thus be seen to be consistent with limited personal judgement being brought to bear on the subject matter. Hypothesis 3 The directional nature of this hypothesis is based on the belief that a strong external knowledge strategy will limit the extent to which collegiality will impinge upon the accountant’s knowledge strategy. Unlike the external knowledge strategy, where it is felt that the nature of the discipline is the primary determinant of its strength, it is believed that the primary determinant affecting the level of an individual’s collegial strategy is the institution with which he/she is involved. For this reason, the association between discipline (accounting versus nonaccounting) and knowledge strategy is expected to be stronger for the external knowledge strategy than for the collegial knowledge strategy. RESULTS OF HYPOTHESIS
TESTING
Hypothesis 1 The I-test has been employed to investigate differences between accounting and nonaccounting academics’ knowledge strategies. Table 1 contains statistics relating to Hypothesis 1. Statistical support for this hypothesis is Table 1. Difference between accounting and nonaccounting academics’ external knowledge strategy
Accountants Nonaccountants
Mean
SD
.1653 - .0681
1.01 ,991
t-value = 1.63; Pooled variance estimate l-tail probability
SD Error
Cases
,123 ,077
68 165
= .05.
Knowledgeand the AcademicAccountant
9
Table 2. Difference between accounting and nonaccounting academics’ personal knowledge strategy
Accountants Nonaccountants t-value = - 1.46; Pooled
Mean
SD
SD Error
Cases
-.1502 .0619
.997 .996
,121 ,076
66 165
variance estimate l-tail probability
= ,075.
evident: Accountants appear to use and value the external knowledge strategy more than do their nonaccountant colleagues. This finding is statistically significant at the .05 level of confidence. Hypothesis
2
From Table 2, it can be seen that support has been provided for the view that accountants exhibit a lower personal knowledge strategy than nonaccountants. This support is statistically significant at the .l level of confidence (p = .075). Hypothesis
3
From Table 3, it can be seen that statistically significant support has not been provided for the third hypothesis. With respect to the third hypothesis, it appeared likely that it is the business school, rather than the discipline, which may act as an influence upon the extent to which an academic holds the collegial truth strategy. This likelihood was investigated by conducting a Kruskal-Wallis test of differences in accounting academics’ knowledge strategies, across the seven business schools. The results of this test are presented in Table 4. While the collegial knowledge strategy exhibits more statistically significant differences across business schools than the other two knowledge strategies, this difference is not itself statistically significant (.1351). DISCUSSION AND CONCLUSION This paper has reported the results of a study designed to explore whether concerns are well-founded that university accounting education fails to uphold the liberal tradition of universities. The method employed to investigate this issue has involved a comparison of the knowledge strategies employed by the accounting faculty of business schools with the knowledge strategies employed by the schools’ nonaccounting faculty. The findings of the study lend support to the view that university accounting education is less associated with the imaginative acquisition of knowledge than is the case in the other business school disciplines.
10
R. B. Brown and C. Guilding
Table 3. Difference between accounting and nonaccounting academics’ collegial knowledge strategy
Accountants Nonaccountants
Mean
SD
- .056 .0231
.935 1.027
t-value = - .55; Pooled variance estimate l-tail probability
SD Error
Cases
,113 ,060
66 165
= ,564.
More specifically, this study has found that accounting academics hold a higher external knowledge strategy (an approach to knowledge that places emphasis on objective criteria), and a lower personal knowledge strategy (an approach to knowledge that emphasises individual creativity, personal experience, and judgement) than nonaccounting business school faculty. No statistically significant support, however, has been provided for the view that accounting faculty hold a lower collegial knowledge strategy (an approach to knowledge that emphasises debate and consultation with peers) than nonaccounting business faculty. When considering the relevance of this English-based study to accounting education in North America, it should be noted that many of the issues affecting English accounting education are believed to be similar to those in the USA. The widespread use of US accounting texts in Britain highlights the extent to which similar attitudes are held with respect to the appropriate and relevant corpus of accounting knowledge. Further parallels between the two education systems are noted by Zeff (1989a). The relevance of this research to a US readership becomes particularly apparent when the study’s findings are considered in the context of developments such as the work of the Accounting Education Change Commission (AECC, 1990), and the proposals outlined in the Bedford Committee Report (American Accounting Association, 1986) and the “Big Eight White Paper” (Arthur Andersen &Co. et al., 1989). Because accounting requires a breadth of capabilities (Arthur Andersen & Co. et al., 1989, pp. 5-8) and individuals have a variety of learning styles (Kolb, Rubin, & McIntyre, 1986), the importance of bringing a broad range of knowledge strategies to bear in the education of accounting students would appear to be self-evident. The findings of this study suggest, howTable 4. Kruskal-Wallis analysis of differences in knowledge strategies across university business schools’ accounting faculties
Personal knowledge strategy External knowledge strategy Collegial knowledge strategy
Chi-square
Significance
Cases
6.1469 6.6774 9.7613
.4069 .3323 .1351
66 66 66
Knowledge and the Academic Accountant
11
ever, that accounting educators employ somewhat narrowly defined, rather than broadly defined, knowledge strategies. The implication that this carries for the current state of accounting education is believed to be particularly significant when it is recognised that the knowledge strategy characterising accounting academics (external knowledge strategy) is largely inconsistent with much of the changed emphasis in accounting education sought by the Bedford Committee and the AECC. Evident in both the Bedford Committee Report (American Accounting Association, 1986) and the AECC’s promulgations (e.g., 1990) is a perceived need for greater emphasis to be attached to the development of creative thinking as well as communication skills. The knowledge strategy that appears to be most closely allied to the former is the personal knowledge strategy, while the collegial knowledge strategy appears to be related to the latter. Recognizing the work of the Bedford Committee and the AECC, the study’s findings give rise to the question: Would there be greater development of accounting students’ creative thinking and communicative skills if accounting educators exhibited a greater propensity for the personal and collegial knowledge strategies? It is our belief that the answer would be positive. The findings also carry implications for accounting faculty’s research orientation. A high external knowledge strategy and a low personal knowledge strategy is consistent with a predisposition towards deductive, technical research rather than inductive, interpretive research. Deductive research is characterised by the collection of data to investigate a hypothesis (i.e., knowledge can be found by means of objective criteria). The accounting researcher would not be inclined to apply inductive research, as the interpretive skills required in such work are more closely aligned to the personal knowledge strategy. This implication of the study’s findings lends support to critics who note that accounting researchers tend to pursue technical findings (Sunder, 1991), and that emphasis on the application of rigourous research methodologies frequently comes at the expense of a research orientation that is relevant to practitioners. Zeff (1989a, p. 170) comments “ . . . there has been a tendency for accounting researchers to become more enamoured of their research methods and methodologies than of the potential of their findings to contribute usefully to the stock of knowledge in the discipline.” Finally, the study carries implications for the nature of accounting faculty’s interdisciplinary interaction. The finding that accounting faculty differ from their peers with respect to two of the three knowledge strategies uncovered in the study suggests that accountants have a fairly distinctive “mind-set.” This may detract from the quality of accounting faculty’s interaction with colleagues from other disciplines. The high emphasis on external knowledge strategies and low emphasis on personal knowledge strategies may result in a degree of collegial isolation for accounting faculty.
12
R. B. Brown and C. Cuilding
This interpretation of the study’s findings may be countered, however, by recognition that accounting faculty exhibit an affinity to the collegial knowledge strategy similar to that of their nonaccounting colleagues. The collegial knowledge strategy finding is important when commenting on the potential for a schism between accounting and other faculty, as interdisciplinary interaction is, after all, an example of collegiality. This discussion of the implications that knowledge strategies carry for education, research, and cross-disciplinary interaction highlights the importance of the construct “knowledge strategy.” While parallels between English and North American accounting education have been noted, the importance of knowledge strategies is believed to be such to warrant further US-based empirical work designed to build on the findings reported in this article. REFERENCES Accounting Education Change Commission. (1990). Objectives of education for accountants: Position statement number one. Issues in Accounting Education, 5(2), 308-312. Allen, M. (1988). The goals of universities.London: Open University Press. American Accounting Association, Committee on the Future Structure, Content, and Scope of Accounting Education (The Bedford Committee). (1989). Future accounting education: Preparing for the expanding profession. Issues in Accounting Education, Z(l), 168-195. Arthur Andersen & Co., Arthur Young, Coopers & Lybrand, Deloitte Haskins & Sells, Ernst & Whinney, Peat Marwick Main 8: Co., Price Waterhouse, & Touche Ross. (1989). Perspectives on education: Capabilitiesfor success in the accounting profession. New York: Authors. Becher, T. (1981). Towards a definition of disciplinary cultures. S&dies in Higher Education, 6(2), 109-122. Becher, T. (1989). Academic tribes and territories. London: The Society for Research into Higher Education and Open University Press. Brown, R. B. (1991). The knowledge of business and the business of knowledge. Unpublished doctoral thesis, University of Bradford, Bradford, UK. Dent, J. F. (1986). Organizational research in accounting: Perspectives, issues and commentary. In M. Bromwich &A. G. Hopwood (Eds.), Research & current issues in management accounting (Ch. 9, pp. 143-178). London: Pitman Publishing Ltd. Frude, N. (1987). A guide SPSS/PC + . London: Macmillan Education Ltd. Keebie, S. P. (1984). University educatjon and business management from the 1890s to the 1980s: A reluctant relationship. Unpublished doctoral thesis, University of London. Kolb, D. A., Rubin, I. M., & McIntyre, J. M. (1986). Organizationoipsychology: An experimental approach to organizational behavior. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice-Hall Inc. Kuhn, T. S. (1962). The structure of scientific revolutions. Chicago: University of Chicago Press. Lander, G. H., & Reinstein, A. (1987). Identifying a common body of knowledge for management accounting. Issues in Accounting Education, 2(2), 264-280. Larson, M. S. (1977). The rise of professionalism. Berkeley: University of California Press. Machlup, E. (1982). The branches of learning. Vol II of the 10 volume series Knowledge: Its creation, distribution and economic significance. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press. Richardson, A. J. (1988). Accounting knowledge and professional privilege. Accounting, Organizations and Society, 13(4), 381-396.
Knowledge and the Academic Accountant
13
Subotnik, D. (1991). Knowledge preservation in accounting: Does it deserve to be preserved? Abacus, 27(l), 65-71.
Sunder, S. (1991). Measuring research accomplishments. Issues in Accounting Education, Spring, 6(l), 134-138. Thompson, J. D., Hawkes, R. W., & Avery, R. W. (1976). Truth strategies and university organization. In W. A. Rushing & M. N. Zald (Eds.), Organizations and beyond: Selected essays of James D. Thompson (Ch. 6, pp. 91-110). Lexington, MA: Lexington Books. (Reprinted from Education Administration Quarterly, 1969, Spring, pp. 4-25) Weir, D. T. H. (1982). Management training and education. In G. Roderick & M. Stephens (Eds.), The British malaise: Industrial performance, education and training in Britain today (pp. 89-106). Lewes, Sussex: The Falmer Press. Whitehead, A. North. (1929). The aims of education & other essays. London: Williams & Norgate Limited. Zeff, S. A. (1989a). Recent trends in accounting education and research in the USA: Some implications for UK academics. British Accounting Review, 21(l), 159-176. Zeff, S. A. (1989b). Does accounting belong in the university curriculum? Issues in Accounting Education, 4(l), 203-210.
APPENDIX
Questions Used to Identify and Measure Knowledge Strategies To what extent do you personally employ the methods listed in order to check whether the results of your research are right? (1 = not at all; 5 = a very great deal). 1. 2. 3. 4. 5. 6. 7. 8.
You trust your feelings on the matter. You trust the validity of your ‘hunch’ that it is right. You trust your intellectual judgement. You look rigorously for an inconsistency between observation and currently validated theory. You gather further evidence and use this to check for inconsistencies. You check for inconsistencies in your “numbers.” You debate with your colleagues until a consensus emerges. You consult the views of colleagues.
12345 12345 12345 12345 12345 12345 12345 12345
These questions focus on perceptions of the rules employed in order to detect errors in research. Research was used as the subject of the questions as it provides a basis for measuring the respondent’s perception of the knowledge required to pursue a discipline, and how the researcher knows this to be legitimate. This operationalisation of knowledge strategies has been derived from Thompson et al.% (1969/1976) model of truth strategies in universities. Factor analysis of responses to the eight questions resulted in the identification of three factors which have subsequently been named personal knowledge strategy (questions l-3), external knowledge strategy (questions 4-6), and collegial knowledge strategy (questions 7-8).
KNOWLEDGE
1993 Copyright
0
0748-5751/93 $6.00 + .oO 1993 Pergamon Press Ltd.
AND THE ACADEMIC ACCOUNTANT: AN EMPIRICAL STUDY Reva Berman Brown UNIVERSITY OF ESSEX Chris Guild@ UNIVERSITY OF AUCKLAND
Abstract: This article concerns the way that academic accountants approach and perceive knowledge. Knowledge within disciplines is based upon knowledge strategies, which are the sets of beliefs and “rules” by means of which academics deal with knowledge. Knowledge strategies underlie the basic philosophy of the various departments which make up the university business school, and affect the way in which academics research and teach their disciplines. The origin of this article lies in our speculation about what it is that academic accountants consider worth knowing about accountancy issues, and further, what rules and strategies impact on their perception of what is valid or appropriate knowledge. In order to ascertain whether or not the concept of knowledge strategies has any validity and whether accounting faculty hold different knowledge strategies compared to nonaccounting business faculty, a study was undertaken involving the seven English university business schools which cover the full range of undergraduate, MBA, doctoral, and executive programmes. A questionnaire was sent to 407 academics at these schools. Following a factor analysis of the data collected, three strategies were identified as the Personal Knowledge Strategy (characterised by reliance on individual creativity, personal experience and judgement), the External Strategy (characterised by the view that knowledge can be found by means of objective criteria), and the Collegial Knowledge Strategy (characterised by debate and consultation with colleagues in order to compare, contrast, discuss and evaluate knowledge). A comparative analysis of the 68 accounting faculty who responded to the questionnaire and the 165 responding nonaccountant faculty revealed that academic accountants hold a significantly lower personal knowledge strategy and also a significantly higher external strategy, when compared with nonaccountant faculty. These empirical findings lend support to Zeff’s concern that academic accountants’ approach to education does not result in students being acquainted “with a field of professional endeavor consistent with the liberal tradition of universities” (Zeff, 1989b, p. 204).
INTRODUCTION
Universities are primarily concerned with the development and diffusion of knowledge through the activities of scholarship, research, and teaching across a wide range of disciplines. A key concept in understanding the nature of universities is that of knowledge strategy, which is the set of beliefs concerning how the search for knowledge is pursued. Knowledge strategies underlie the basic philosophy of academic disciplines and departments, and each department has to take account not only of the paradigm of its discipline, but also of its knowledge strategy. It is because of the diversity of beliefs about knowledge found within them that universities can have difficulty in applying princi-
2
R. B. Brown and C. Guilding
ples of management which have been developed in more cohesive business organizations. The same list of complaints is voiced by successive generations of accounting and business students year after year: The education given is too remote from real business concerns, is too “academic,” pays insufficient attention to the external legal, social and political environment within which the students will conduct their working lives, lacks coherence, is preoccupied with technical exactitude and expertise, and is inadequate in responding to the needs of contemporary society. While the academic staff of business schools might concede that there could be some validity in these criticisms, they are likely to add that there are two main things which the students are ignoring. First, that a specialized curriculum develops in students the habits of mind and the skills that will enable them to solve problems when they face them, and second, that students should accept that academics know about knowledge, and about what knowledge their students need to know. From the perspective of faculty, this second point seems to be frequently regarded as an innate truth. It would seem that accounting and business school academics consider themselves to be pursuing a particular aspect of knowledge through their research, scholarship, and teaching. This notion was the starting point of research into two questions: what are the knowledge strategies with which business school academics are concerned, and how do these strategies affect the accounting faculty of business schools? The questions were investigated sequentially. Initially, research was undertaken into the uncovering of the knowledge strategies of business school academics in general, and then the puzzle concerning academic accountants was addressed. The question of concern was: Is the manner in which knowledge is perceived by accounting academics significantly different from the manner in which it is perceived by nonaccounting business academics? The research method involved a survey by means of a mailed questionnaire. The population surveyed involved those seven English university business schools that cover the full range of educational courses: undergraduate, MBA, doctoral, and executive development programmes. The questionnaire was mailed to the 407 full-time business faculty at the seven university business schools which run such “whole-range” programmes. The objective of the survey was to elicit the perceptions of academics as to the elements which constitute appropriate knowledge in their business school in general, and their own discipline in particular. Four-hundred seven questionnaires were distributed, and 233 usable responses were obtained. These were divided into 68 accounting and 165 nonaccounting faculty. Following a literature review, preliminary interviews, and questionnaire piloting, eight questions (see Appendix) were designed to elicit the knowledge strategies of respondents (Brown, 1991).
Knowledge and the Academic Accountant
3
Factor analysis yielded the three factors described in the article. A respondent’s factor score provided the basis for the t-test and Kruskal-Wallis analysis (Frude, 1987). The data analysis was designed to investigate whether support can be provided for views and concerns expressed by a number of accounting researchers (e.g., Dent, 1986; Lander & Reinstein, 1987; Richardson, 1988; Subotnik, 1991; Zeff, 1989a, 1989b). We believe that knowledge strategies employed by accounting academics are fundamental to the subject of these commentaries. The remainder of the article first discusses the nature of knowledge strategies, and then focuses on a comparison of the knowledge strategies of accounting and nonaccounting academics. KNOWLEDGE
STRATEGIES
The undertaking of the empirical research was triggered by speculations put forward by Thompson, Hawkes, and Avery (1969/1976) in a discursive essay in which they posit the existence of knowledge strategies (they call them “truth strategies”) which are the sets of rules which guide human beings in their search for knowledge. Thompson et al. suggest that the knowledge contained within an academic discipline is elicited by means of implicit and/or explicit rules which make its definition possible, and which enable the recognition of such knowledge as relevant to the discipline. Thompson et al. are concerned not with ultimate truth, but with how people in universities behave with respect to knowledge and ignorance. This 25year-old essay had not been put to the test before Brown (1991) took up Thompson et al’s speculative model in order to test its relevance to the modern university. Where Thompson et al. posited that there might be four truth strategies, which they labelled the Scientific, Direct, Analytic, and Inspirational, Brown found that there are three factors which underlie the search for knowledge, which she called knowledge strategies, and labelled them Personal, External, and Collegial. Personal Knowledge
Strategy
Individual academics, disciplines, and academic institutions using the personal knowledge strategy are heavily weighted towards reliance on individual creativity, personal experience and judgements, valuing and relying on their own experience and judgement in their knowledge searches. External Knowledge
Strategy
Those who use the external knowledge strategy provide support for the proposition that academics in business schools tend to follow the “pattern of normal science” (Kuhn, 1962) in the social sciences by adapting the scientific method of the natural sciences to their knowledge requirements.
4
R. B. Brown and C. Guilding
Collegial Knowledge
Strategy
This strategy is the most co-operative of the knowledge strategies, involving debate and consultation with colleagues in order to compare, contrast, discuss, and evaluate knowledge. The collegial strategy contains a degree of personal judgement combined with openness to the judgement of others. Knowledge within a discipline is based upon its knowledge strategy, and it is this varied nature of knowledge that is particularly relevant to understanding the knowledge dynamics of universities. For instance, physicists hold certain beliefs about how the world works which are different from those held by historians or botanists. It was Thompson et al.‘s supposition (196911976) that it is because of this diversity of beliefs about knowledge that decision-making in universities is sometimes such a difficult process. It was suggested by Thompson et al. (1969/1976) and subsequently tested by Brown (1991) (and found to be likely) that knowledge strategies interact in a dynamic process with the academic disciplines of which they are a part, so that such disciplines both shape knowledge strategies and are shaped by them. This dynamic process is acted upon by the demands from within the university for certain types of standards of performance. Brown’s findings suggest that the knowledge strategies operating within an academic institution affect the institutional demands for performance norms and outcomes in three main areas: 1. Teaching (and its consequent examining standards, procedures, and pedagogical approach). For example, an academic who or a discipline which holds that knowledge is a product which can be accumulated, marketed, and sold, will teach external facts which can be examined by means of explicit procedures based on rigorously measured standards. 2. Research (and in particular, the chosen approach to data analysis and dissemination). For example, the academic whose knowledge strategy is that research should include a large element of continuing debate and discussion with colleagues will deal with data and the dissemination of the research in a different manner than a researcher whose knowledge strategy leads to a more private and individual approach (Machlup, 1982). 3. The institutional reward system (pay, promotion, and recognition of achievement). For example, if the predominant knowledge strategy of a university or department is that of reliance on the individual judgement and personal experience of faculty in their knowledge acquisition and dissemination, it is more likely to recognise the achievement of those faculty who happen to share this knowledge strategy, and will favor these for promotion over those faculty who approach knowledge with another strategy. Those faculty members who do not happen to share the pre-
Knowledge and the Academic Accountant
5
dominant strategy of their department or university feel that somehow they do not “fit in,” even though they cannot give a reason for this feeling (Becher, 1981, 1989; Brown, 1991). The process of knowledge acquisition is nowhere more deliberately instituted and self-consciously examined than in the modern university (Allen, 1988; Keeble, 1984; Weir, 1982). It is suggested, therefore, that the exploration of knowledge strategies employed by academic accountants will yield new understanding of the dynamics of accounting education.
THE ACCOUNTING CURRICULUM IN UNIVERSITY BUSINESS SCHOOLS The literature on accounting education, much of it critical of current trends in teaching (knowledge-dissemination), was the starting point of the second phase of the research. Once the likely existence of knowledge strategies in university business schools had been established, it was possible to pose the question: Is the manner in which knowledge is perceived by accounting academics significantly different from the manner in which it is perceived by nonaccounting business academics? Zeff (1989a) draws attention to recent tends in accounting education and research in the United States, and discusses some of their implications for academics in Britain. Zeff’s concern is that trends (in the USA) towards a strengthening of the standard-setting process and a more rigorous enforcement of accreditation standards is likely to produce undesirable effects on accounting education. Zeff states (1989a, p. 168) that textbooks and other teaching materials are likely to begin to resemble codifications of recommended practice because the trend is towards making accounting seem to be an objective, highly-structured corpus of settled knowledge. In the terms of this study, what Zeff is drawing attention to is the strength of the external knowledge strategy among accountants, whether academic or practitioners. In connection with this concern, Zeff (1989b) poses the threatening question: Does accounting belong in the university curriculum? His contention is that accounting is presented not as an interesting subject, but “as a collection of rules that are to be memorized in an uncritical, almost unthinking way” (Zeff, 1989b, p. 204). Zeff quotes Whitehead (1929, pp. 144-145) who suggested that “the proper function of the university is the imaginative acquisition of knowledge,” with the inference that this is not the way academic accountants see the purpose of their own academic discipline. It appears that Zeff would prescribe a change of attitude among academic accountants consistent with a shift towards a more personal knowledge strategy, and an easing of the extent to which they hold on to the
6
R. B. Brown and C. Guilding
external knowledge strategy. Because of the way in which the curriculum allows itself to be driven by the standard-setting bodies, academic accountants are not encouraged to widen their range of knowledge strategies for their discipline, for themselves, and for their students. Because “we have allowed the standard setters to determine our agenda” (Zeff, 1989b, p. 208), accountancy textbooks, accounting curricula, and the knowledge considered to be essential for the practice of accounting do not allow academic accountants to spend much time exploring and teaching those aspects of the discipline’s knowledge which derive from the personal, let alone the collegial, knowledge strategies. Richardson (1988) is concerned with the relationship between the structure of professional knowledge and accountants’ access to social rewards. Richardson’s results support Larson’s (1977) “cognitive exclusiveness” theory, which suggests that the professions gain rewards by standardising their knowledge and institutionalising the training of practitioners within universities. Here is another explanation of the reluctance of academic accountants to move from the external knowledge strategy. For Lander and Reinstein (1987), however, the hallmark of any profession is the presence of a common body of knowledge whose parts can be defined and defended. The common body of knowledge “determines the professional requirements of the beginning management accountant, the content of professional examinations, and the curricula that provide that knowledge” (Lander & Reinstein, 1987, p. 264). The existence and importance of that common body of knowledge is what preserves the relative narrowness of the curriculum delivered by academic accountants. This view echoes Zeff’s opinion (1989b) that a university education in accounting requires more than a dogmatic and doctrinaire curriculum. The knowledge provided by the academic accountant should include a historical perspective, the mention of the nonaccounting factors that have influenced the development of accounting practice, the recognition of the impact of accounting on the economy, the environment, and on society in general, and the inclusion of an international dimension in order to facilitate the students’ grasp of the many facets of economic, political, and social life in different countries and cultures. If such items were included in the accounting curriculum, it would imbue students with qualities which would prepare them “for an intellectual career in a profession of importance to society” (Zeff, 1989b, p. 207). Academic accountants’ knowledge strategies carry implications for accounting research as well as education. Dent (1986), reflecting on the state of management accounting research, concludes that the current preoccupation with the understanding of accounting as it is practiced demonstrates a growing interest in what he calls “accounting in action.” Research into “accounting in action” requires the use of the personal and the collegial knowledge strategies (there being no need to refer to external
Knowledge and the Academic Accountant
I
authority to research the way things are done), while it is the external knowledge strategy which comes into play when academics are disseminating knowledge about accounting rather than gathering knowledge by means of research. HYPOTHESIS
FORMULATION
Consideration of the literature of accounting knowledge in the light of the concept of knowledge strategies provided three hypotheses for investigation in the second phase of the research: 1. Accounting faculty hold a higher external knowledge strategy than nonaccounting faculty. 2. Accounting faculty hold a lower personal knowledge strategy than nonaccounting faculty. 3. Accounting faculty hold a lower collegial knowledge strategy than nonaccounting faculty. The first two hypotheses are discussed together below, followed by a discussion of the third hypothesis. Hypotheses
1 and 2
The rationale supporting these hypotheses is as follows: (a) Compared to the other disciplines that typify business schools (e.g., marketing, organizational behaviour), accounting faculty can be closely identified with a handful of large professional bodies. The creation and maintenance of a profession clarifies what subject matter and knowledge base is to be associated with the university discipline with which it is most closely allied. The question of what constitutes accounting’s knowledge base is manifestly addressed via the syllabi established for each of the professional institutes’ examinations. The existence of such a widely accepted knowledge base makes the task of defining an appropriate course content easier for the academic accountant. Alternatively, we could say that academic accountants are more constrained in their course design, experiencing less freedom, compared to nonaccounting colleagues. (b) In the Western world, accounting is generally associated with the well-defined double-entry methodology. The wide acceptance of this approach to record-keeping signifies the extent of standardisation achieved by accounting practitioners. Such standardisation is reinforced by accounting standards established by the regulatory and influential bodies which establish common codes of accounting practice. These standards are concerned with minimising problems of misinterpretation, inexactness and ambiguity, and creating financial
R. B. Brown and C. Guilding
8
statements that can be compared between enterprises and between accounting periods for the same enterprise. The degree of standardisation that has been inculcated into accounting practice reduces the accounting academic’s need to bring personal judgement to bear on the subject matter. The standard-setting process has also refined the areas and nature of debate associated with issues arising from accounting practice. (cl The strongly espoused principle of objectivity in accounting can also be expected to influence practitioners’ beliefs and approach to the subject matter of the discipline. Application of the objectivity principle can be seen as both an example, and a source, of standardisation. Adherence to this standard causes common approaches to be taken and minimises the need for judgement in financial reporting. The objectivity principle can thus be seen to be consistent with limited personal judgement being brought to bear on the subject matter. Hypothesis 3 The directional nature of this hypothesis is based on the belief that a strong external knowledge strategy will limit the extent to which collegiality will impinge upon the accountant’s knowledge strategy. Unlike the external knowledge strategy, where it is felt that the nature of the discipline is the primary determinant of its strength, it is believed that the primary determinant affecting the level of an individual’s collegial strategy is the institution with which he/she is involved. For this reason, the association between discipline (accounting versus nonaccounting) and knowledge strategy is expected to be stronger for the external knowledge strategy than for the collegial knowledge strategy. RESULTS OF HYPOTHESIS
TESTING
Hypothesis 1 The I-test has been employed to investigate differences between accounting and nonaccounting academics’ knowledge strategies. Table 1 contains statistics relating to Hypothesis 1. Statistical support for this hypothesis is Table 1. Difference between accounting and nonaccounting academics’ external knowledge strategy
Accountants Nonaccountants
Mean
SD
.1653 - .0681
1.01 ,991
t-value = 1.63; Pooled variance estimate l-tail probability
SD Error
Cases
,123 ,077
68 165
= .05.
Knowledgeand the AcademicAccountant
9
Table 2. Difference between accounting and nonaccounting academics’ personal knowledge strategy
Accountants Nonaccountants t-value = - 1.46; Pooled
Mean
SD
SD Error
Cases
-.1502 .0619
.997 .996
,121 ,076
66 165
variance estimate l-tail probability
= ,075.
evident: Accountants appear to use and value the external knowledge strategy more than do their nonaccountant colleagues. This finding is statistically significant at the .05 level of confidence. Hypothesis
2
From Table 2, it can be seen that support has been provided for the view that accountants exhibit a lower personal knowledge strategy than nonaccountants. This support is statistically significant at the .l level of confidence (p = .075). Hypothesis
3
From Table 3, it can be seen that statistically significant support has not been provided for the third hypothesis. With respect to the third hypothesis, it appeared likely that it is the business school, rather than the discipline, which may act as an influence upon the extent to which an academic holds the collegial truth strategy. This likelihood was investigated by conducting a Kruskal-Wallis test of differences in accounting academics’ knowledge strategies, across the seven business schools. The results of this test are presented in Table 4. While the collegial knowledge strategy exhibits more statistically significant differences across business schools than the other two knowledge strategies, this difference is not itself statistically significant (.1351). DISCUSSION AND CONCLUSION This paper has reported the results of a study designed to explore whether concerns are well-founded that university accounting education fails to uphold the liberal tradition of universities. The method employed to investigate this issue has involved a comparison of the knowledge strategies employed by the accounting faculty of business schools with the knowledge strategies employed by the schools’ nonaccounting faculty. The findings of the study lend support to the view that university accounting education is less associated with the imaginative acquisition of knowledge than is the case in the other business school disciplines.
10
R. B. Brown and C. Guilding
Table 3. Difference between accounting and nonaccounting academics’ collegial knowledge strategy
Accountants Nonaccountants
Mean
SD
- .056 .0231
.935 1.027
t-value = - .55; Pooled variance estimate l-tail probability
SD Error
Cases
,113 ,060
66 165
= ,564.
More specifically, this study has found that accounting academics hold a higher external knowledge strategy (an approach to knowledge that places emphasis on objective criteria), and a lower personal knowledge strategy (an approach to knowledge that emphasises individual creativity, personal experience, and judgement) than nonaccounting business school faculty. No statistically significant support, however, has been provided for the view that accounting faculty hold a lower collegial knowledge strategy (an approach to knowledge that emphasises debate and consultation with peers) than nonaccounting business faculty. When considering the relevance of this English-based study to accounting education in North America, it should be noted that many of the issues affecting English accounting education are believed to be similar to those in the USA. The widespread use of US accounting texts in Britain highlights the extent to which similar attitudes are held with respect to the appropriate and relevant corpus of accounting knowledge. Further parallels between the two education systems are noted by Zeff (1989a). The relevance of this research to a US readership becomes particularly apparent when the study’s findings are considered in the context of developments such as the work of the Accounting Education Change Commission (AECC, 1990), and the proposals outlined in the Bedford Committee Report (American Accounting Association, 1986) and the “Big Eight White Paper” (Arthur Andersen &Co. et al., 1989). Because accounting requires a breadth of capabilities (Arthur Andersen & Co. et al., 1989, pp. 5-8) and individuals have a variety of learning styles (Kolb, Rubin, & McIntyre, 1986), the importance of bringing a broad range of knowledge strategies to bear in the education of accounting students would appear to be self-evident. The findings of this study suggest, howTable 4. Kruskal-Wallis analysis of differences in knowledge strategies across university business schools’ accounting faculties
Personal knowledge strategy External knowledge strategy Collegial knowledge strategy
Chi-square
Significance
Cases
6.1469 6.6774 9.7613
.4069 .3323 .1351
66 66 66
Knowledge and the Academic Accountant
11
ever, that accounting educators employ somewhat narrowly defined, rather than broadly defined, knowledge strategies. The implication that this carries for the current state of accounting education is believed to be particularly significant when it is recognised that the knowledge strategy characterising accounting academics (external knowledge strategy) is largely inconsistent with much of the changed emphasis in accounting education sought by the Bedford Committee and the AECC. Evident in both the Bedford Committee Report (American Accounting Association, 1986) and the AECC’s promulgations (e.g., 1990) is a perceived need for greater emphasis to be attached to the development of creative thinking as well as communication skills. The knowledge strategy that appears to be most closely allied to the former is the personal knowledge strategy, while the collegial knowledge strategy appears to be related to the latter. Recognizing the work of the Bedford Committee and the AECC, the study’s findings give rise to the question: Would there be greater development of accounting students’ creative thinking and communicative skills if accounting educators exhibited a greater propensity for the personal and collegial knowledge strategies? It is our belief that the answer would be positive. The findings also carry implications for accounting faculty’s research orientation. A high external knowledge strategy and a low personal knowledge strategy is consistent with a predisposition towards deductive, technical research rather than inductive, interpretive research. Deductive research is characterised by the collection of data to investigate a hypothesis (i.e., knowledge can be found by means of objective criteria). The accounting researcher would not be inclined to apply inductive research, as the interpretive skills required in such work are more closely aligned to the personal knowledge strategy. This implication of the study’s findings lends support to critics who note that accounting researchers tend to pursue technical findings (Sunder, 1991), and that emphasis on the application of rigourous research methodologies frequently comes at the expense of a research orientation that is relevant to practitioners. Zeff (1989a, p. 170) comments “ . . . there has been a tendency for accounting researchers to become more enamoured of their research methods and methodologies than of the potential of their findings to contribute usefully to the stock of knowledge in the discipline.” Finally, the study carries implications for the nature of accounting faculty’s interdisciplinary interaction. The finding that accounting faculty differ from their peers with respect to two of the three knowledge strategies uncovered in the study suggests that accountants have a fairly distinctive “mind-set.” This may detract from the quality of accounting faculty’s interaction with colleagues from other disciplines. The high emphasis on external knowledge strategies and low emphasis on personal knowledge strategies may result in a degree of collegial isolation for accounting faculty.
12
R. B. Brown and C. Cuilding
This interpretation of the study’s findings may be countered, however, by recognition that accounting faculty exhibit an affinity to the collegial knowledge strategy similar to that of their nonaccounting colleagues. The collegial knowledge strategy finding is important when commenting on the potential for a schism between accounting and other faculty, as interdisciplinary interaction is, after all, an example of collegiality. This discussion of the implications that knowledge strategies carry for education, research, and cross-disciplinary interaction highlights the importance of the construct “knowledge strategy.” While parallels between English and North American accounting education have been noted, the importance of knowledge strategies is believed to be such to warrant further US-based empirical work designed to build on the findings reported in this article. REFERENCES Accounting Education Change Commission. (1990). Objectives of education for accountants: Position statement number one. Issues in Accounting Education, 5(2), 308-312. Allen, M. (1988). The goals of universities.London: Open University Press. American Accounting Association, Committee on the Future Structure, Content, and Scope of Accounting Education (The Bedford Committee). (1989). Future accounting education: Preparing for the expanding profession. Issues in Accounting Education, Z(l), 168-195. Arthur Andersen & Co., Arthur Young, Coopers & Lybrand, Deloitte Haskins & Sells, Ernst & Whinney, Peat Marwick Main 8: Co., Price Waterhouse, & Touche Ross. (1989). Perspectives on education: Capabilitiesfor success in the accounting profession. New York: Authors. Becher, T. (1981). Towards a definition of disciplinary cultures. S&dies in Higher Education, 6(2), 109-122. Becher, T. (1989). Academic tribes and territories. London: The Society for Research into Higher Education and Open University Press. Brown, R. B. (1991). The knowledge of business and the business of knowledge. Unpublished doctoral thesis, University of Bradford, Bradford, UK. Dent, J. F. (1986). Organizational research in accounting: Perspectives, issues and commentary. In M. Bromwich &A. G. Hopwood (Eds.), Research & current issues in management accounting (Ch. 9, pp. 143-178). London: Pitman Publishing Ltd. Frude, N. (1987). A guide SPSS/PC + . London: Macmillan Education Ltd. Keebie, S. P. (1984). University educatjon and business management from the 1890s to the 1980s: A reluctant relationship. Unpublished doctoral thesis, University of London. Kolb, D. A., Rubin, I. M., & McIntyre, J. M. (1986). Organizationoipsychology: An experimental approach to organizational behavior. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice-Hall Inc. Kuhn, T. S. (1962). The structure of scientific revolutions. Chicago: University of Chicago Press. Lander, G. H., & Reinstein, A. (1987). Identifying a common body of knowledge for management accounting. Issues in Accounting Education, 2(2), 264-280. Larson, M. S. (1977). The rise of professionalism. Berkeley: University of California Press. Machlup, E. (1982). The branches of learning. Vol II of the 10 volume series Knowledge: Its creation, distribution and economic significance. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press. Richardson, A. J. (1988). Accounting knowledge and professional privilege. Accounting, Organizations and Society, 13(4), 381-396.
Knowledge and the Academic Accountant
13
Subotnik, D. (1991). Knowledge preservation in accounting: Does it deserve to be preserved? Abacus, 27(l), 65-71.
Sunder, S. (1991). Measuring research accomplishments. Issues in Accounting Education, Spring, 6(l), 134-138. Thompson, J. D., Hawkes, R. W., & Avery, R. W. (1976). Truth strategies and university organization. In W. A. Rushing & M. N. Zald (Eds.), Organizations and beyond: Selected essays of James D. Thompson (Ch. 6, pp. 91-110). Lexington, MA: Lexington Books. (Reprinted from Education Administration Quarterly, 1969, Spring, pp. 4-25) Weir, D. T. H. (1982). Management training and education. In G. Roderick & M. Stephens (Eds.), The British malaise: Industrial performance, education and training in Britain today (pp. 89-106). Lewes, Sussex: The Falmer Press. Whitehead, A. North. (1929). The aims of education & other essays. London: Williams & Norgate Limited. Zeff, S. A. (1989a). Recent trends in accounting education and research in the USA: Some implications for UK academics. British Accounting Review, 21(l), 159-176. Zeff, S. A. (1989b). Does accounting belong in the university curriculum? Issues in Accounting Education, 4(l), 203-210.
APPENDIX
Questions Used to Identify and Measure Knowledge Strategies To what extent do you personally employ the methods listed in order to check whether the results of your research are right? (1 = not at all; 5 = a very great deal). 1. 2. 3. 4. 5. 6. 7. 8.
You trust your feelings on the matter. You trust the validity of your ‘hunch’ that it is right. You trust your intellectual judgement. You look rigorously for an inconsistency between observation and currently validated theory. You gather further evidence and use this to check for inconsistencies. You check for inconsistencies in your “numbers.” You debate with your colleagues until a consensus emerges. You consult the views of colleagues.
12345 12345 12345 12345 12345 12345 12345 12345
These questions focus on perceptions of the rules employed in order to detect errors in research. Research was used as the subject of the questions as it provides a basis for measuring the respondent’s perception of the knowledge required to pursue a discipline, and how the researcher knows this to be legitimate. This operationalisation of knowledge strategies has been derived from Thompson et al.% (1969/1976) model of truth strategies in universities. Factor analysis of responses to the eight questions resulted in the identification of three factors which have subsequently been named personal knowledge strategy (questions l-3), external knowledge strategy (questions 4-6), and collegial knowledge strategy (questions 7-8).